Relationships and The Dog...

Building a relationship with the informants is the single most important thing one can think of doing in the field. I have 21 interviews after 4 weeks of research, but I am not sure how many are actually of any use, because I don't know how some of them represent the truth about what these people do and think in their work.

People, and journalists specially, can be very doubtful of our intentions in asking all those questions about how they do things, they are afraid that giving in to much could put them in risk, or make them vulnerable. Also, I perceive in some of them a discourse that matches the management's discourse, and the opposite in others, which means that the the first case is when they are not disclosing what they really think, what they really do: they are just afraid of where am I going to send that tape...

Also, I am not sure if I observed enough. It is very difficult to tell what they are doing from any distance. Unless they talk you through it, it is a very misterious -- or dull, depending on your take -- think to do to watch a journalist working.

I had some very honest testimonies, people that said very confidential things, complained and told me what they think about things. But in those the problem is now separating their personal opinion about management from what are actually processes they go through in a days' work.

I think the most difficult part of my job is about to start: analysing this data will be The Dog...

Looong time no see

So, that was it, I dropped the ball. It is too much, the whole fieldwork thing is too much. I thought that the uncertainty was something that haunted you on the first couple of days, maybe first week. But here I am, fourth week in, and still don't have a clue.

The funny part of it is that I seat there, at the newsroom, and sometimes I think I've seen it all, I heard it all, I know how it works. It can't be, I know, I know. And that is when my paranoid side talks louder into my ears (which are soar from the combination transcription headphones + glasses): "You must be missing something. "These people are all lying to you. You have no idea of what goes beneath..."

I think I should had just remained as a journalist, a profession where paranoia is a great skill.

Have I finished? Being bored and finding it easy means that I'm done? Should I know what to write about? Am I extending this further than I need to? Do I have enough material to write about? Did I find anything interesting?

I have 6 weeks to find out.

The story so far

Almost end of the third week in the field and I have done 16 interviews. I don't know what am I going to do with all this... I started reviewing the literature again (very slowly) to guide my thoughts in this last week, and I think I drew a line here and there, of things that I am NOT interested in. For example, I am not interested in the details of editor's interactions with the Content Management System. Poor usability there abounds, but this is not what my theses is about. In the same way, I am not interested in fixing management problems (shortage of staff, for example).

On the other hand I can start seeing patterns in what people tell me, about what story I can tell about the comparison I set myself to do.

"Acting with Technology" is Bonnie Nardi and Victor Kaptelinin's new book on Activity Theory, which I recommended to UCL's library to purchase and happily collected today!

After the badge, the backpack attacks!

After a few weeks at the newsroom, I have the strong feeling that people started avoiding me. They look at me and pretend they didn't see me -- even if their eyes cross mine -- and they change their routes to avoid me.

There are two very possible things happening here:

1) They have been told off by management for slowing or not being very efficient, because they were being distracted by me

2) They got gradually aware that I am talking to everyone in the newsroom, and therefore the possibilities that I know things that they don't increased, as well as the risk of me letting off information they gave me or opinions they expressed.

I also realize that people pretend not to see me or get slightly uncomfortable when I approach them with my blue notebook -- which is not full of "secret notes" -- in hands. So I left the notebook in the bag and, else, went to see people with my backpack in place (on my back, of course), so to transmit the message: "I will not disturb you now, whatever I will tell you will be quick, because I am either arriving at the newsroom or most probably, leaving". It did work!

I interviewed a very concerned person today. And I must say it was a shame to have to ask this person if I could turn on the recorder, because the issue we discussed was very delicate, and I am sure that had we been just chatting I would have got more from him. But then, how would I remember it in detail? Specially today, as I seem to have a gray cloud over my head.

Trade offs.

The more people tell me what they think, the more I get involved with delicate issues, and the bigger my awareness of how it is important to keep their identities safe.

Changing habits

Interesting comment by Julia Hailes, sustainability consultant:

The biggest challenge is not the technology, but in changing peoples’ habits.

After these weeks at The Newspaper, I couldn't agree with her more.

Bad interview

Today I did what was probably my poorest interview so far. I was carried away from my main subjects and didn't have the power to stir him back in.

The interviewee -- being a schooled journalist himself -- made sure to take a long time and add a lot of detail to the inoffensive questions and not so much in the ones I was really interested in, which, in turn, made the interview longer than necessary, very dull and not very useful.

Also he didn't tell me what he really thought, I think. I have the impression that either I failed in making him comfortable with the confidentiality with which I would treat the data, or he does believe in the success of the operation for the sake of his job. After all, waking up in the morning for something you think is doomed mustn't be easy.

What could I have done better? Interrupt him in the dull parts was out of question. Contesting what he said was impossible, because he was giving his opinion about things.

So my question is: what kind of science is this that ethnography does that is based on people's opinions? Is this what we are trying to capture: detailed accounts of what people think of ongoing processes? How much objectivity needs to be put in an interview to make it valid?

Cold feet

So I reached half of the period I have for the observations: two weeks. And I think I reached a critical point, that point that what Hammersley calls "the tunneling" effect needs to happen, and quick.

I basically have three paths to follow.

1) Clash of cultures: how do two cultures, the newsroom journalism and the online journalism work together? How does one influence the other and how do they change the other? Changing habits, routines, quality x speed, rhythm of production, tensions both in human relations and resources x constraints.

2) Decision making under pressure: how the decisions that need to be taking in writing and editing are constrained by the time limits imposed by the online edition

3) I forgot. Which means that is probably not important.

I'm more inclined to think like the first one. Specially because I have been thinking about it through "Activity Theory's eyes". But then I am afraid I should submit this theses at the Sociology department, not the Interaction Center...

Simon says "it's fine". And the chief of the department, a carrier researcher, says it's fine too. I just wonder if I won't be telling an old story, something that is not the whole truth, because the newsroom is just too much of a complicated environment for me to absorb in a month, or something that is of no use...

I think I have cold feet.

Ethics

Almost two weeks down the road of the observations at The Newspaper I can say I am sure I did the right choice of not introducing myself as a journalist.

Today I watched, for the second time, a sub-editor doing his job. He let me seat behind his chair and literally look over his shoulder for about 2 hours. At one point he asked me what were the notes I was taking and I showed him my notebook and explained a few pages, and what are the things I am interested in.

After that he opened up and explained me another universe of things he does when editing. Now, imagine if I had introduced myself as "hi, I have some experience in this field and I would like to watch your work".

The ethics of the situation has been pinching my brain, and my concern of not being entirely true or trustworthy to the participants led me to an almost paralisis. However, my mind came to peace when I concluded a couple of things:

- One, I am not lying, because nobody asked me if I am a journalist yet. And if they do ask I will tell them what I have done in the past. In fact, the ones who asked me if I had been in a newsroom before I said that yes, I had, but not as a journalist, and that is true.

- Two: I am not a journalist. I am a researcher and I am looking at their work from the perspective of Human Computer Interaction.

Apart from that I am doing all I can to respect the participants, protect their identities, member check and be accurate and clear about my work and my interest. Consent forms are filled in and signed, rules are explained before interviews... and, of course, I still walk around with my badge...

There is a really fine line between being ethic and not in an ethnographic study. I wonder how the researchers from the Chicago School dealt with with when doing their 10 years long studies, how did they hide their other lives, how did they live through it and how they remained ethical.

I wonder if I should talk to them at after the research is done.

Back to the newsroom

... I had to get my head around things pretty quickly. It was very good to go there late at night and meeting one of the subeditors with whom I talked to last week. And he let me watch him doing his job from quite close and ask him questions and chat... it was fabulous!

I am trying to keep the Activity Theory background questions in my head, but finding it complicated. I find that I focus more on certain aspects (like rules and community) and less in others (like division of labour and the objects). I guess I started seeing patterns of behaviour, as now I have seen the work of more than one person. And I think that I will start seeing things better as I write them down.

Tempted to dig into the night and transcribe everything I saw right now...

I need to keep thinking: what is this story about? what am I seeing?

Bimbo Town

Leipzig was just great! The city is fantastic, the neighbourhood where we stayed was the industrial part of town (and when I say industrial is East Germany Industrial), with infinite derelict buildings, just waiting for people to make parties in them. My favourite thing was to look inside them through the holes in the doors and windows. The interior of some of them is still quite impressive. In some there are some people living, others were converted into huge apartments, in others there is nothing but past. It felt like half of the city had ran away from some plague: things left half done, plants growing in the ceilings of abandoned towers and massive massive plants with great massive smashed glass windows, all these places made of bricks and concrete. Nobody was around. It was a weekend.

Then the party was something else. We were invited -- to go to Leipzig in the first place - to go to the last ever party in Bimbo Town (which in German apparently means Negro Town, and is not related to bread as I thought, or to cute useless blonde girls as Ian thought)

I have been thinking in how I can describe what this place is like, and the best I could compare it to is Blade Runner's toy maker: that guy that seats around making his own little weird dolls and dwarfs and all these other weird, quite old and decadent things, which are incredibly curious and inspiring.

Jim, the author of such a parallel world, is a parallel guy himself. What an amusing, interesting, intelligent person to talk to. What an amazing man... he builds what he calls "friendly machines", which are, in fact, robots: small, funny, big, bumpy, rude, missing parts, they are every where. Then the sofas that "eats you up" and the bed that takes you for a walk, and the "giant pudding made of air chambers that feels your presence and bumps into you. And, the detail is that we have the place all for ourselves. It was like having someone closing Disney just to you when you are a kid (I guess)

I could spend the night writing about it.

The point I wanted to make is that for 2 days I have been to another planet: Spinnereistraße, 7. And it is difficult to get used to Earth again. And specially difficult is to make all last week's thoughts flow back again into my head...

1st week wrap up

So, that's it, the first week is gone. At first I had the impression I didn't gather much, but reading my notes yesterday made me change my mind.

I feel now I understand the basis of how the newsroom works, and I have contacted 13 people, observed 1 of them working, interviewed 3 others, chatted to other 4 and have interviews scheduled for the rest. Which is good, but not enough.

Yesterday I met Simon and he seemed pleased with the work so far. We had a good chat about AT, which I had kind had put in the back of my mind, for now. But now he read my "theoretical considerations" document he seems to be less suspicious about it now and less reluctant that I decided to use it as a framework. He also liked the document, specially the analogy of trip to an unknown city, regarding the question about using or not a framework to guide research.

He asked me to put together a list of "what the story is about", which is a great way of thinking for me, as this is what I do, I put stories together. He also clarified to which extent I need to explain "how I did it". He thinks, for example, that the story of the badge is a good example that shows I was sensitive to the constraints of the field, and to the people around me, which is a good methodological point, but the limit to which I need to tell the story "behind the scenes" in the theses.

There is another framework, which he used in his theses, by Rasmunssen, which in a way talks about the same things that AT does, with another language. He says it is enormous and very complicated to get your head around it, but recommended I read chapter 2 of his (Simon's) theses, where there is a good summary of it all.

I feel rested and today I could stay at home and write all day long. But I am off to Leipzig now and will be back on Monday. Looking forward to knowing a new city, this time, without any maps!

The things that (only) people do when you get close to them

"It is incredible what people let you do when you get close to them". That is what Simon said about the fact that yesterday I had the chance of observing a sub-editor doing her work, and talking aloud and explaining things to me. It was fascinating.

I didn't ask her to talk aloud. She just did. Not all the way through, but she did. And she explained errors when they happened. And they happened, oh lord, they did. :)

I'm feeling less uncomfortable, more capable of approaching people, but also a bit more annoying and less "news" to them. Which is good and bad. It is good because I am not supposed to be news, I am supposed to fade in the background. And bad because I don't have the excuse "hi I am new here" to introduce my conversations, so will have to come up with a different approach.

I will do a wrap up of the 1st week tomorrow, draw a route of the story as I understand it so far, make a list of issues I want to present to Simon, a list of questions I have for him, print the material produced -- specially the interviews -- and put together a plan for next week, including the people I have scheduled to talk to and a bit of a direction to the interviews I want to make to the head of news and the head of online.

One last point: I need to stop saying "right" every time the person I am interviewing stops talking. It is very annoying to hear when I am transcribing the audio. It must be annoying for them as well.

The badge-trigger

Today I had a real revelation: badges can do you a big favor in an overt observation. At The Newspaper there are a lot subeditors or writers who are "casuals", i.e., that come to the newsroom in an irregular basis. And they do rotate a lot, there are a lot of different people coming and going everyday. So, as far as everybody is concerned, I am just another "sub", or another "temp".

So this morning I had an insight: I noticed that nobody wears their badges, which works as a security pass, opening doors and allowing you in and out of the building. My theory was that if I did wear a badge, it would be a sign for people to notice that I am not one of them. I dress up like them, (I'm wearing my glasses and hair tied back, which gives me this "journalist look"), do a lot of what they do: take notes and write in a computer, which allows my existence in the newsroom without causing disturbances.

But there is a little sign hanging around my neck saying "are you interested? talk to me!". And it worked! People looked at me and asked what on Earth I was doing there, which gave lead to explain the project and what I am doing and ask questions about them. It is quite tacky, but I don't mind. I think it is worth it. Also prevents me from losing it.

Strange are the triggers of conversations in the field...

First day in the field

So, if all they say in the books about feeling extremely uncomfortable, quite lost and drained on your first day in the field is true, I think I am on the right path. It is one of the most exhausting things I have ever done. Because it is not like going to a press conference, where the "thing" you want to know is there in front of you, or interviewing someone looking for a lead that is news. It is more subtle than that.

Today I just let myself get acquainted with the place: who is who, who seats where, where is the bathroom, how does it all feels together. I think I did a good job on that.

It is a funny game to be an ethnographer: you want to be as discrete as possible, to "merge with the background", but you also need to be interesting enough for people want to talk to you. And I tested it today: it all depends on your attitude and your body language. I am sure that some people thought I am a complete weirdo, others got interested in what I do, others couldn't care less. But in all cases it really depended on my attitude.

The other thing is that it is quite difficult not to confuse it with "the first day in your new job". I don't work there, and I won't work there. These people are not my colleagues, they are my subjects, I am interested in what they do -- trivial that it sounds when I explain it to anybody outside my own little usability/ethnography world -- and how they do what they do. So that might be kept in mind.

Tomorrow is the second day. And I don't have the "admin+getting to know the place" excuse. I need to bring home some solid results.

Points of general interest

Before going to the field later on this morning, I elaborated this list of points that can be of general interest to me. It is short, which I think is a good thing, since each of these points can originate a paper of its own. I am sure, though, that it will be changed and expanded with time and as I get to know the business better.

• Process: how is a story born and how is the path it follows in the newsroom? What goals people have individually and how to they compare with the goals of the organization?
• Sources of news: original material x newswire material. Who produces them, how do they do that, why do they do that, what are the differences?
• Destination of news: online x paper for deadlines (time), formats, requirements, planning, editorial meetings, interactions with the readers, multimedia, people involved, production involved.
• Organization of the newsroom: how are desks distributed, “themed” x “un-themed desks”, hierarchies, flows of interactions
• Flows of interactions: communications, duplications, disposition, rules, means, “outlouds”…)
• Jobs: as they are described x reality, what each “type of job” does (editor, writer, subeditor, head of desk, etc)
• Routines: what are the routines people have in the newsroom, how were they created (may be impossible to find out), what purposes do they serve, how do they change?
• Added value: how does a story get “The Newspaper" value? How do the people involved in its production make it unique, how do they communicate about it. Novices x experienced journalists.
• Software: how does it support what they need to do? Different softwares for different activities?
• Documents: how are they used and produced. Tangibility, hierarchy, meanings, format (printed, screen, PDFs, available, not available, public, restricted, etc).


I believe that I will have to choose one of these to follow, instead of trying to understand them all. A good hint of that is Macaulay's theses, which is entirely focused on origin of news. My main flaw, so far, is that in the proposal for this project I didn't limit this focus, and offered a quite wide one ("how do journalists gather, process and convey information").

As for today, I need to talk to my gatekeepers and find out where I can start talking to people. An internal change in the company will make my life more difficult today (or not, because people love to criticize internal changes). It might not be a very productive day, but it is important that I leave the newsroom today with a sense of its dynamics, who is who, who seats where. According to Hammersley, I hope not to feel comfortable, because when one feels comfortable in the field it is a sign either that things are not going well or that they are finished.

Let's see what the day reserves

Beginning of fieldwork

Tomorrow is my first day at The Newspaper. I am not very clear about how things are going to go, specially because they are launching a new design today, so the moods might not be very calm in the newsroom tomorrow.

I prepared my theoretical considerations and the one sentence explanation I will give to the gatekeeper when we meet in the morning, so he can help me finding out with whom I need to talk.

I'm not having a good personal day today and I am not as focused as I should be.